This study explored dialectical tensions and metaphors
throughout relational development. Participants identified stages
of relationships with stages of "beginning/attraction,"
"insecurity/decision-making," and "contentment/stability" being
most prevalent in relational development. Dialectic tensions that
characterized relationships include all six of Baxter's (1988)
internal and external relational contradictions:
autonomy-connection, prediction-novelty, openness-closedness,
inclusion-seclusion, conventionality-uniqueness, and
revelation-concealment. Internal tensions were more primary in
relationships than external tensions. Metaphors were analyzed and
coded into five themes: attraction, development, uncertainty,
unsettled, and content. These metaphors were also evident in
several of the tensions. Overall, this study contributes to
theoretical development of the dialectic perspective and extends
research on metaphors in interpersonal relationships.

Various scholars have voiced their opinions regarding future
directions for interpersonal communication. Some common issues
prevail. First, researchers call for the need to identify features
characteristic of relational development (Baxter, 1990; Duck &
Pittman, 1994). Scholars (Altman & Taylor, 1987; Lewis, 1972)
have argued that relationships undergo changes resulting in
developmental stages. Developmental models must take into
consideration various aspects of relational development, without
presupposing a particular stage progression (Delia, 1980; Werner
& Baxter, 1994). Thus relational development should not be
presumed by researchers, rather the stages of relationships should
emerge from participants' descriptions of the relationship.

Second, it is important for interpersonal scholars to examine the
language of relational pairs. Duck (1990) indicates there are
implications of narratives and accounts that individuals construct
about the past. Talk of individuals may reveal attitude, intimacy,
and self-disclosure about relationships. The creation of stories
tends to reflect a person's needs, illustrate the relationship's
present, as well as indicate the individual's expectations about the
future. Language can also indicate how individuals think about their
relationships. The nature of the relationship is communicated through
nonverbal and verbal elaboration. This language can serve a variety
of relational functions, acting as an index of relational status or
an instrument of relational change (Sillars, Shellan, McIntosh, &
Pomegranate, 1997). Therefore, investigation of how individuals
discuss their relationships can be used to help scholars understand
relational changes.

Third, interpersonal researchers must examine the dialectical
tensions that exist in relationships. Duck (1990) and Duck and
Pittman (1994) advance the need for scholars to look at dyadic
dilemmas of resolving contradictions. Duck (1990) argues that social,
relational, and individual forces influence relationships through
dialectics that create patterns as individuals attempt to resolve
tensions. The identification of dialectical tensions existing in
interpersonal relationships warrants further investigation.

Finally, Bochner (1984) states we should use more metaphors in
studies to help understand relationships. Baxter (1990) and Owen
(1984) have also discussed the need for metaphor research to aid in
understanding perceptions that individuals have about their
relationships.

Given these concerns, the purpose of this exploratory study is to
explore the dialectic tensions and metaphors that emerge from
individuals' perceptions of romantic relationships. Two areas of
literature review warrant explanation--dialectic research and
metaphoric language.

Dialectic Perspective

The dialectical perspective was chosen as the theoretical
grounding for this study. The dialectical approach is considered a
meta-theory or a perspective for studying interpersonal relationships
(Baxter, 1988; Cupach, 1992; Duck & Pittman, 1994). This
particular approach examines contradictory tensions in relationships
that lead to relationship change (Cupach, 1992).

Major components of dialectics include those of contradiction,
process and interconnection. Contradiction is formed whenever two
tendencies or forces are interdependent, yet mutually negate each
other (Baxter, 1988, 1990; Cornforth, 1968; Montgomery, 1993). In
general terms, it refers to the dynamic tension between opposing
forces. For example, both spontaneity and predictability within a
relationship may be desired.

Contradictions of relationships are normal phenomena seen as
neither inherently positive nor negative--they just exist. Both poles
of the opposition are assumed to possess potentially positive and
negative attributes as well as to have possibly positive and negative
ramifications for the relationship (Montgomery, 1992a, 1992b, 1993).
By realizing inevitable forces exist, and that such tensions are not
unhealthy, people will better understand the process of interpersonal
relationships.

Stamp (1992) claims that process implies dialectics as always
being present within relationships and experienced to various degrees
by relationship interactants.

Mao (1953, 1965) proposes that contradictions are characteristic
of developmental processes, thus occurring throughout the course of
relationships. Communication scholars have looked at the process of
relational development using the dialectical perspective. Wiseman
(1986) looks at friendships. Dialectics and relational development
also have been studied in romantic relationships (Baxter, 1990;
Montgomery, 1992a; Pawlowski, 1996). Finally, Masheter and Harris
(1986) look at divorced couples and their encounters with tensions
and dissolution of the relationship. Indeed, it appears that the
dialectical perspective is applicable for examining relational
development as it is capable of delineating among various
developmental stages of relationships.

In addition to contradiction and process, several scholars
identify interconnection or totality as an essential component of the
dialectical perspective (Baxter, 1993; Montgomery, 1992a, Rawlins,
1983b, 1992; Sabourin, 1992; Werner & Baxter, 1994).
Interconnection generally refers to the interdependence of the
tensions such that no single contradiction can be considered in
isolation of other contradictions (Rawlins, 1989; Werner &
Baxter, 1994). It should not be possible then to have just one
contradiction operating in a relationship. The problem with most
dialectic research is that studies usually center on only one
contradiction. If a fundamental theoretical concept is that
contradictions are interconnected, then more research needs to
examine whether various contradictions emerge at one time in actual
relationships.

Identified Tensions

Dialectical research also focuses on internal and external
contradictions (Baxter, 1990). Though others have studied
contradictions in relationships, the main contributor to the
identification of contradictions for this study is Baxter (1988,
1990). Baxter's work mainly focuses on romantic relationships with
three main dialectical categories: integration-separation,
stability-change, and expression-privacy (Baxter, 1988, 1990, 1993,
& 1994; Werner & Baxter, 1994). Integration-separation
captures the basic tension between social integration and social
division. Stability-change includes the opposition of continuing and
discontinuing the relationship. Expression-privacy identifies what is
said and what is left unsaid; what is expressed and not expressed.
These three main dialectics are illustrated in two forms--internal
and external. Internal contradictions are bound to those within the
dyadic social unit of study--the relationship itself, or the
"interpersonal dialectical process" (Altman, 1993; Brown, Altman
& Werner, 1992). External contradictions are constituted between
the social unit and the larger system in which they are embedded--the
dyad in connection to outside social networks of friends, family, and
the society (Brown et al., 1992; Montgomery, 1992b).

Table 1 outlines the
typology of Baxter's contradictions. Three internal tensions occur
within the privacy of the relationship, between the relational
partners: autonomy-connection, prediction-novelty, and
openness-closedness. Autonomy-connection is considered the primary
internal strain within a relationship (Baxter, 1988; Griffin, 1994).
This contradiction explains the tension exploring the difference
between the need for partner independence and autonomy and the need
for partner connection or interdependence in relationships.
Relationships must undergo some sacrifice of individual autonomy in
order for a relationship to exist.

Predictability-novelty refers to the routine and uncertainty of
perceptions and behaviors in relationships (Baxter, 1993). This
contradiction revolves around a partner's need for predictability,
certainty, and routinization, on the one hand, and the need for
novelty, stimulation, and spontaneity, on the other hand (Werner
& Baxter, 1994). Without some element of surprise, the
relationship may become boring and emotionally dead.

The last internal contradiction is openness-closedness. This
contradiction refers to the amount of candor and discretion in
partners' interactions (Baxter, 1993). Open self-disclosure is
necessary for relationship intimacy. However, privacy is also
desirable as individuals may not want to fully discuss matters for
fear of vulnerability or hurt resulting from excessive honesty.

Three parallel external tensions exist between the social unit and
outside social system within which the social unit is embedded:
inclusion-seclusion, conventionality-uniqueness, and
revelation-concealment. Inclusion-seclusion involves a couple's
management of coping with the demands to withdraw from others and to
interact with others (Baxter, 1993; Werner & Baxter, 1994).
Werner and Baxter (1994) assert that couples need time alone and
privacy from others to establish their own dyadic relationship. In
addition, couples need to create identity as a social unit requiring
integration with others.

Conventionality-uniqueness relates to the tension of conforming to
societal norms and creating a unique pair identity. Baxter (1993)
notes that compliance with social conventions provides social
identity known to outsiders allowing the couple to easily interact
with others so as to fit into society. Although conforming to society
is desirable, couples do not want to be carbon copies of other
couples. Thus, couples also feel a need for uniqueness in their
couple presentation to outsiders.

The final external tension is revelation-concealment involving the
decision to reveal relational information to outsiders. Deciding what
to reveal or not to reveal creates a dilemma for relational partners.
Support and legitimization by others is important, however, public
exposure comes at a cost of privacy to the relational pair.

Baxter's work is substantial in examining dialectics of
interpersonal and romantic relationships. Other research on
dialectical contradictions also investigates specific contradictions.
For example, researchers have looked at autonomy-connection
(Goldsmith, 1990; Montgomery, 1992a), autonomy (or differences) of
couples (Wood et al., 1994), openness-closedness of relational
couples and their social networks (Baxter & Widenmann, 1993),
closedness in relation to taboo topics (Baxter & Wilmot, 1985),
self-disclosure and privacy in terms of openness and closedness
(Petronio, 1991; Petronio & Martin, 1986), and
autonomy-connection and openness-closedness of marital couples (Hoppe
& Ting-Toomey, 1994). Only one study to date has examined all six
contradictions within relationships (Pawlowski, in press). These
studies contribute important information to the study of dialectics;
however, most do not attempt to consider multiple contradictions.

From this review of literature thus far, it appears the
dialectical perspective is concerned with relational development.
Given the importance of understanding the developmental stages of
relationships and interdependency of contradictions within
relationships, the following research questions were examined:

RQ1: What stages do people use to describe their relational
development?

Up until the mid 1980s, no research existed on the role metaphors
play in the construction of relationships (Owen, 1985). Current
research shows that individuals use metaphors in describing their
interpersonal relationships (Atwood & Levine, 1991; Baxter, 1992;
Gatz & Christie, 1991; Kovecses, 1991; Owen, 1985). In general,
most scholars agree that metaphors help in creating individuals'
perceptions of their world (McCorkle & Mills, 1992; Owen, 1985;
Tourangeau & Rips, 1991; Waggoner, 1990; Yamamoto, Hardcastle,
Muehl, & Muehl, 1989; Turner & West, 1998).

Metaphors are cognitive structures that help individuals
understand and interpret their world (Galvin & Brommel, 1996;
McCorkle & Mills, 1992). Lakoff and Johnson (1980) identify a
metaphor as "understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in
terms of another" (p. 5). Lakoff and Johnson also argue that our
everyday life is metaphorical in nature. Not only do we speak in
metaphors, but we also think and act metaphorically.

Metaphors allow individuals to express their feelings and emotions
more freely without overtly discussing them. Individuals may not be
able to communicate their true feelings, but they may be able to
describe how they feel through the use of metaphors. Thus, metaphors
are beneficial in studying relationships as literal language of
individuals may not be able to fully convey the complexities of the
relationship experiences.

Metaphors have been used to study various interpersonal
relationships. Owen (1984) conducts one of the earliest studies on
interpersonal relationship metaphors. Owen collected self-reports
from individuals in various types of relationships in order to
discover communication people use in their relationships.
Interpretative thematic analysis uncovered seven main themes:
commitment, involvement, work, unique/special, fragile,
consideration/ respect, and manipulation.

Owen (1990) continued his research of relational metaphors by
allowing individuals to identify the progression of their
relationship and to indicate any changes they experienced within
their relationship. Written diaries and interviews of two case
studies were used for analysis. Participants were not specifically
asked to identify any metaphors or turning points in describing their
relationships. Owen extracted relational turning points and metaphors
from data.

Although tapping into new metaphor research, this study includes
drawbacks. First, individuals were currently in relationships with an
average duration of six months. Research should encompass metaphoric
language used to describe stages prior to, during, and after
perceived breakup. Second, Owen claims researchers could ask
individuals to think of their relationships in metaphorical language
to discover which transitions of relational development require
changes in participants' language. This approach would sensitize
participants; however, it would begin to tell researchers what
changes in relational development influence changes in metaphorical
language.

Baxter (1992) also examines metaphors in romantic relationships by
studying the root metaphors used in accounts of developing romantic
relationships. Seven root metaphors emerged: work, journey of
discovery, uncontrollable force, danger, organism, exchange, and
game. As demonstrated, scholars study the use of metaphors and
relational development in various types of relationships. Since
research calls for a need to further examine metaphors of relational
developmental, research question three is posed:

RQ3: What metaphors do people use to describe their relational
development?

Metaphors and Dialectical Perspective

Most research on dialectics involves examples of respondents'
descriptions from interviews. Much of the language in the examples is
metaphorically laden. For example, in Rawlins (1989, 1992) studies of
friendship, descriptions include some of the following: "I'm a
hothead," "we all start chasing her," "pick yourself up," and "I grew
up to like him."

Other studies relating to romantic relationships (Baxter, 1990;
Pawlowski, 1996) include language such as "I needed my space and ways
to get that space...," "relationship dies off real fast," "we decided
we're going to give this a shot," "vacations were like a shot in the
arm," and "we were caught in the school rut."

From these examples depicting two different types of
relationships, metaphoric language seems present within various
tensions of interpersonal relationships. Thus, the dialectic
perspective can be used as a basis for metaphor research of
interpersonal relationships. This relationship between metaphors and
dialectic research fosters a final research question as no other
study has examined such a relationship:

RQ4: What dialectic tensions are embedded within metaphoric
language?

Methods

Participants

Ten participants were obtained through a network method and were
chosen on the basis of their interest and willingness to participate
in this exploratory study. Individuals needed to be currently in a
relationship or having recently been in a past relationship (within
the last two months). Six women and four men participated. Five
individuals were single and five were married. Three were divorced,
one is remarried, and two experienced recent break-ups. Current
relationship length ranged from 2 weeks to 7 1/2 years. Past
relationship length ranged from 1 1/2 years to 16 years. The ages
ranged from 23-49; seven of whom were in their twenties. All
individuals were Caucasian and in heterosexual relationships. Three
participants were secretaries, four were in professional jobs and
obtained advanced degrees, and three were graduate teaching
assistants.

Research Procedures

Individuals were called on the phone or approached in person
asking their permission to participate in the study. Participants
were interviewed. Each interview was audio taped, completed in one
session, and varied in length from 60 minutes to 90 minutes.
Interviews were in depth face-to-face interviews and took place by
the researcher in a location chosen by the interviewee.

Interviews followed an interview guide approach. This approach
allows a question protocol for the interviewer to pursue, while
allowing the interviewee to shape the content of the interview and
encourages emergence of related issues (Patton, 1990). Questions were
created to tap into the specific stages and metaphors used to
describe the relational development. This allowed for some structure
and guidance for the interviewees to follow in creating their
relationship history. Although these data were specifically asked,
questions did not inquire about dialectical tensions. Since much of
the dialectical research has examined only internal tensions, one
purpose of this study was to determine if the respondent would
identify both internal and external tensions, rather than the
researcher soliciting such information. Thus, the questions did not
ask for specifics about any dialectical tensions.

As this was an exploratory study, a limited number of questions
were asked in order to answer the research questions. Samples of
questions included the following:

How do you know when you are in a romantic relationship?

How does it feel? (Emotionally, physically.)

How would you describe your relationship at the present time?

Or one from the most recent past?

In thinking about the development of your relationship, describe
the stages your relationship has/had gone through?

In thinking about the stages, please identify and describe
metaphors that fit each of the stages?

What did you experience in this particular stage?

A brief explanation and a non-relationship example of a metaphor
were given to provide the individuals an understanding of a metaphor.
Allowing open-ended questions allowed individuals to speak from their
own experiences without impositions of the researcher (Polkinghorne,
1983). Probes were asked as needed for further information.

Data Analysis

After interviewing the couples, tapes were transcribed. Among
these transcripts, dialectical tensions and metaphors were
identified. Dialectic responses were coded according to Baxter's
typology of contradictions. First, the tensions described were
identified and written on notecards. Two independent coders who
separated them into the six tensions identified by Baxter analyzed
the notecards. Inter-coder agreement was at 91% and Cohen's kappa was
.89.

A similar procedure was used to identify metaphors. Transcripts
were analyzed and metaphors (whether specified by participants or
extracted from data) also were written on notecards. Metaphors were
initially separated by the researcher according to 5 emergent themes:
attraction, development, uncertainty, unsettled, and content. To
verify the accurateness of the five themes, the two independent
coders used the five created labels and sorted the metaphors.
Inter-coder agreement was at 88% and Cohen's kappa was .87. The
research and coders resolved discrepancies in both procedures.

Results and Discussion

Stages

In addressing the first research question of what stages do people
use to describe their relational development, 45 specified stages
were identified. The stages ranged from 3-8 with the average being 4
stages in each relationship.

Regardless of the number of stages, three stages were predominant
in responses: beginning/attraction, insecurity/decision-making, and
commitment/stability. All individuals identified a
beginning/attraction stage, regardless of whether relationships
started as acquaintances or strangers. Individuals still involved in
relationships identified all three stages, thus assuming that
commitment/stability may be a necessity of relational continuation.
This stage appeared to be a significant stage in relationships.

The insecurity/decision-making stage did not appear in any
specific point in relationship. This stage did however, characterize
important relational changes as many individuals identified this
stage more than once. Individuals experiencing recent breakups
revisited this stage throughout their relational development, whether
it was before or after any commitment/stability stage was identified.
Those who are still in relationships, identified the
insecurity/decision-making stage prior to the commitment/stability
stage. Thus, insecurity and decision-making are important as they may
occur at any time during the relationship.

Although other stages were depicted, these three stages were the
most predominant throughout the interviews. Individuals provided
specific examples, narratives, and dialogue to illustrate stages.
Even though stages were identified, they were explained in terms of
"process," "transitions," "development," and "changes." This
demonstrated that individuals see their relationships as a
developmental process over time. Asking individuals to create their
own developmental progress eliminates previous problems of
researchers presupposing specific stages. From this evidence, then,
it also may be assumed that people do see their relationships in
terms of processes of relational development regardless of the term
(stage) used in labeling the development.

Dialectical Tensions

One hundred sixty dialectical tensions emerged from the
transcripts to provide data in answering research question two: Do
the tensions identified by individuals fit within Baxter's typology
of dialectical contradictions: autonomy-connection,
prediction-novelty, openness-closedness, inclusion-seclusion,
conventionality-uniqueness, and revelation-concealment? Analysis
shows that all six dialectical tensions were identified in the data.
Table Two identifies a
breakdown of numbers and percentages. As indicated by the
percentages, internal tensions were more prevalent than external
tensions in descriptions of the relationships.

Autonomy-Connection

According to dialectic research, the tension of
autonomy-connection is a primary tension in relationships (Baxter,
1990; Montgomery, 1993; Pawlowski, in press). From the great number
of responses, this tension also appears primary in this study.
Individuals described autonomy-connection in a variety of ways.
Individuals characterized this tension as being a struggle, an
internal conflict, and contentment. The following are examples from
respondents:

It was like a drama of trying to decide if you want to
spend the rest of your life with someone or not. It was
challenging--he didn't want to give up his bachelor-hood and all
his stuff.

We just decided to call it off about 3 weeks ago--We're not
going cold turkey because we are still best friends. We're trying
to do things together, but it's tough; I'm not the one who broke
it off.

A sectioned orange--deciding to pull each piece apart and look
at each one or take the orange as a whole and deal with it all at
once.

These examples indicate that some individuals saw autonomy and
connection in competition with each other or a problem that needed to
be solved.

In the beginning stages of relationships, most individuals were
satisfied to give up their own autonomy so as not to jeopardize the
relationship itself:

It was me and you [sic] against the world--had an
ally in everything. We couldn't do anything without each other.
Very enmeshed. Spent all our time together.

I wanted to physically be near him. To put my arm around him
and try to hold his hand. This comes from wanting to be close to
him and developing a bond.

When describing the relationship as it develops over time,
individuals seemed content with not having to be at each other's
side. The partners felt comfortable searching for their independence
once again:

We are still dependent and close, but we are settling
down now. We can spend more time apart now.

You reach a comfort stage. You don't need to be with them all
the time. You can have independence.

You're confident that you don't need immersion. You can be in
the same room and not talk to each other and still be
together.

Predictability-Novelty

Most dialectic research identifies autonomy-connection and
openness-closedness as the two largest categories (Baxter, 1990;
Montgomery, 1992; Werner & Baxter, 1994). Though in this study
predictability-novelty was much larger than openness-closedness. Some
individuals described "newness" during the initial stages of the
relationship:

In the beginning, we did a lot of things that were just
exciting. Fun things like white water rafting, something I never
pictured myself doing.

When you thought of him, you became twitterpated.

Like a Valentine's Day party when you were kids and everyone
brought their packages valentines. The little bags we all made
were different and you tried to find the cutest one for the guy
you really liked.

It's new, innocent, cutesy.

Other individuals expressed the need to bring some excitement back
into the relationship. These individuals appeared to be lacking
spontaneity in their relationships. In these instances, individuals
saw the tension as problematic. This frustration is demonstrated with
the following:

Sometimes I think he should give me a little present or a
note or call me and say something sweet - but it's not going to
happen. I know it's not going to happen&emdash;so why force it. I
don't want anything forced.

So the relationship is on hold. It's like 'put everything on
hold and we will deal with each other when we have
time--later--not right now.' But the more I wait, the more hostile
I get. So I feel pathetic. I really want someone to be romantic
and attentive to my needs. I need some spark.

In addition, others felt comfortable with the amount of
predictability and novelty in their relationships. These incidents
seem to occur after the relationship had been established:

There are different emotions at the same time&emdash;like
an umbrella or a cloud with many raindrop emotions that go with
it. Happy raindrops--don't wake me in the morning raindrops. You
become attuned to the emotions. I know what angry is--I know what
to expect from my emotions when a relationship develops.

It's early summer now. Things are more relaxed and you really
enjoy the give and take. Flowers are on occasion--but not as much
as in the springtime. But it may be the little comments. It's more
relaxed--more secure. Not as many quick changes in the weather
pattern.

Finally, individuals demonstrated this tension through negative
feelings. They did not see the novelty as fun, rather the surprise
element in the relationship was destructive:

Then it was like dropping the bomb. She told me she lost
the spark--there wasn't anything there. It was complete news to
me. I mean a week before we had actually gone and looked at
engagement rings.

It was like she went overboard in thinking bad things.

This particular incident shows how both poles of the tensions were
operating in the same instance where the novelty created a negative
result.

Predictability-novelty seems to be an important tension in
relationships. It appears to be a prevalent tension occurring equally
in all stages of relational development.

Openness-Closedness

In regard to openness/closedness, no pattern existed as to when
either pole dominated in the relationship. Individuals indicated both
self-disclosure and non-disclosure during the beginning of
relationships:

During dinner, he spilled his beans about everything--about all
his old girlfriends. You'd ask him anything and he'd answer it. I
thought how odd for him to disclose so much on the first date.

You want to know everything about them and they want to know
everything about me. It's heavy emotional time--take off the
masks--risk level is high.

As the relationship developed, conflict emerged as a force in the
openness-closedness tensions. This conflict was internal or external,
and was expressed as follows:

I will tend to avoid conflict. I will avoid it--but
that's not healthy. One thing I've learned is that maybe I should
just blow up and let it run its course.

You can get pissed off at him now. You know you'll still love
him but you can tell him you're really really mad and you're still
glad he's your partner--but you can say you're depressed because
he yelled at you.

The apparent association between conflict and openness-closedness
may have implications for those interested in relational
conflict.

Finally, this tension was characterized by the comfort and ease of
openness in the relationship. Such instances were described as
follows:

Now, I feel comfortable--100% comfortable. We can talk
about anything. He wouldn't think gross or anything--I like
that--I can say how I feel. He knows I'm just venting--he knows
what I'm thinking--I like that.

We have total honesty. The desire to make it work. We talk and
work out our problems.

A great deal of research argues that the intimacy and
self-disclosure are important to relationships (Hoppe &
Ting-Toomey, 1994; VanLear, 1991). The importance of
openness-closedness is also evident in this study as several
individuals expressed deep emotions when struggling with this
tension.

Inclusion-Seclusion

The inclusion-seclusion tension, which is the first of the
external contradictions seemed to be broken down into three
parts--dominant pole of inclusion, dominant pole of seclusion and an
identification of both poles. When individuals talked of others being
included in their activities, inclusion was both voluntary and
involuntary. For example, instances occurred where individuals wanted
or included others:

We created a history--we shared the same friends--the
same experiences.

At Christmas time--I was ready to break up with him. My sister
said "You're right, you need to focus more on you a little more
and not so much on what he's doing." She said, "Make a list of
reasons why you should and should not break up with him." I was
mad and made a list of all the bad things and I was ready to break
up with him. I practiced with my sister.

This appreciation of others was not always the case. One
individual indicates instances where others were not invited:

Engagements are a pain--that's the time when you should
decide if this is really right. Once you're engaged--everyone else
is planning the wedding and asking "What else needs to be
discussed?"

I felt like no one was listening to me. I kept hearing, "This
is your day." But it was not my day&emdash;--t ended up being
everyone else's day.

The dominant pole of inclusion is important in relationships as it
may indicate the inclusion of others is not always by choice but more
of an imposition by others.

In opposition, this tension was characterized as seclusion being
dominant in the relationship. It may not be a struggle between
inclusion, rather a purposeful decision not to include others:

This was our screw-up stage. My family wanted us to come
to dinner and if we both didn't want to come we would say "He
doesn't want to...--She doesn't want to...." We used each other
for excuses--we were so dependent on each other we'd make excuses
to our families.

Then you reach immersion&emdash;immerse yourself in the other
person. All you see is each other&emdash;all you do is each
other&emdash;you ignore everyone else.

Individuals use seclusion from others as a means of strengthening
their own connection to each other.

Finally, inclusion-seclusion can encompass both poles within the
relationship. This tension can be seen as a transition from one pole
to another where the change is perceived as comfortable. These
descriptions identify the shift between both poles of the
tension:

I never went to Dad's by myself--we always went together
to the house. Then when we settled down, I could go by myself to
Dad's for a couple of hours and he could go play baseball.

That's when I think you are in a good relationship. When you
move from being so close no one else could penetrate the circle,
to expanding that circle to involve each other's
friends--family--and become part of a bigger community.

Again the perception of comfort emerged which demonstrated the
flexibility individuals in the relationship yield to each other. Not
all individuals felt a comfort level, but a real struggle between the
poles:

At first I thought he was a loser--hanging out with his
fraternity friends. I was insecure--it was my first real
relationship. We realized we had to stop partying and drinking.
You have to distance yourself from your friends. We had a lot of
friends. They wanted to pull us apart&emdash;they wanted us to
date--but also wanted girls/boys night out. We'd meet at midnight.
We could meet each other later--but not at 8:00--we had to be with
our friends then.

It was a tug-of-war--a rubber band. Friends tugging one way--or
we were tugging each other too.

Friends said, "No, you don't need him." We were pulled and
stretched--tugging between friends--between us.

Conventionality-Uniqueness

Conventionality-Uniqueness was the smallest category identified.
Most of this dialectic was manifested in terms of what is expected
from society--what is considered traditional in the American
culture.

My mom was really cool about the wedding. But everyone
else wanted everything to be what they envisioned a wedding should
be like. I thought "You know, let's just get married in the meadow
outside."

I fully expected to be married by 25 and thinking about kids.
The all-American boy. That's not even nine months away and I'm not
even close now.

The expected norm for relational events was specified in these
quotations. Even though individuals talked of the "ideal" tradition,
conventionality was not always desired. Thus couples may conform to
the ideals to satisfy others and not themselves.

Revelation-Concealment

The last tension is revelation-concealment. This tension was
exemplified with examples of one pole or another and the struggle of
both poles operating at the same time. Description of this tension
appeared throughout relational development. The beginning of the
relationship related more to revealment of the relationship
itself.

We'd go to the movies together--but we were just friends.
That's what we told people. We were adamant we were just friends.

I was dating another guy when we first began--but we began as
friends. Then I had to tell the other guy about us and break it
off with him.

As the relationship became more involved, individuals provided
examples to show how they dealt with changes in the relationship. The
development of a relationship is something people may want to share
with others; however, these two examples show a contrast between
revealment and concealment:

Then I ended up living with him. My whole family knew we
were living together&emdash;but his parents didn't know.

He slipped the ring on my finger and we started calling people
from the bar saying, "We're engaged!"

Relationship break-up seemed to be a revealing process.
Dissatisfaction of the relationship was shared with others in hopes
of redefining and rejuvenating the relationship:

The last six to eight months we've been coasting
along--but going nowhere. We've talked to different people to help
us--her parents--other people--ministers.

Another individual explains how revealment was used as a sense of
finality for the relationship:

Then it ended and everyone knew it. It may not have
totally ended--but it ended legally and we were no longer
together.

In summary, individuals identified all six tensions. Scholars
argue that autonomy-connection and openness-closedness are the
primary strains within relationships (Baxter, 1988, 1990; Altman,
Vinsel, & Brown, 1981; VanLear, 1991). However, in this study,
primary tensions were autonomy-connection and predictability-novelty.
Given this analysis, it is evident that all three internal
contradictions need consideration in dialectic research.

It is also apparent that different poles of the tensions may be
operating at different times of the relationship. For example, in
early relationship stages, connection was greatly favored over
autonomy, and novelty was more predominant than predictability. The
openness/closedness tension appeared somewhat equal across the
relationship development as individuals expressed both high degrees
of openness and closedness in the beginning of their
relationships.

Metaphors

Metaphor analysis was done in two phases and answered research
question 3 and 4: What metaphors do people use to describe their
relational development?, and What dialectic tensions are embedded
within metaphoric language? First, individuals were asked to provide
metaphors for their identified relational stages. This generated a
list of 46 different metaphors. Some of the metaphors used to
describe the beginning/attraction stages of relationships included
"winter," "Valentine's Day party," "excitement," "pals,"
"twitterpated," "magic," "budding flower," "points of contact," and
"opening a book." These metaphors characterize the newness and
excitement of initial encounters.

Another common stage of relationships is
insecurity/decision-making. This stage is depicted by "seeding,"
"darkroom," "wheelbarrow," "tug-of-war," "ultimatum," roller
coaster," "drama," "exploration," and "rubber band." These metaphors
demonstrate the unpredictability that many individuals described as
not knowing what will come of the relationship.

The commitment/stability stage of development was illustrated as
"confidence," "mature plant," "finding the right angle of a
photograph," "old pair of shoes," "contentment," "same vector,"
"parallel lines," "not having to cling to the vines," "circle," and
"ring." These metaphors show the connectedness of individuals in the
relationship. A healthy stable relationship is the image created by
the connotation of these phrases.

Individuals delineating break-ups chose metaphors such as "dying
from lack of water," "clean break," "betrayal," and "dropping the
bomb." The picture created in these descriptions shows a sense of
finality to the relationship.

As people described their relationship development, their language
changed. For example, one man used the metaphor of a plant in
describing how the plant begins as a vulnerable seedling needing
water and room to grow. The plant then develops and needs nutrients
(from others) to grow and mature into a stable plant. Once stable,
the plant does not need to depend on other plants, not having to
cling to other vines. If the plant becomes too stagnant, it may lack
nutrients and start dying from lack of water. From this example, it
is obvious that the metaphoric language changes throughout the
development of the relationship. Owen (1990) previously argued for
the need to study metaphors described prior to- during- and after
breakups. He also questioned whether changes in relationship
development would require change in individuals' language. As
evidenced, metaphoric language does change as people describe their
relational development. It seems important then that language of
participants may help to characterize the relational points of
development.

After investigating the identified metaphors, a second analysis
was conducted with the metaphors. Throughout the reading of the
transcripts metaphoric expressions were being illustrated.
Individuals described their relationships using metaphors even before
they were asked to provide metaphors for the actual stages. The
number of metaphors appeared significant such that 273 metaphors were
extracted from the transcripts. These metaphors were arranged into
five categories: attraction, development, uncertainty, unsettled, and
content. A breakdown of numbers and percentages is seen in
Table Three.

Attraction

Attraction refers to the initial stages of development and is
expressed through feelings of excitement and getting to know the
partner. Some attraction metaphors include "being twitterpated,"
"cloud nine," "Valentines Day party," "euphoria," "deep
conversation," "limited sight - only have eyes for each other,"
"magical," "warm and gooey," "attraction," "magnetic," "vacation in
the mountains," "little butterflies," "sunshine glow on your
shoulders," "cool like winter - frozen - distant--getting to know
each other," swept off your feet," "good ice cream cone--something
you can't get enough of," budding flower," "candle in a dark
room--all you see is that candle and flame," and "finding a cute
little animal in your back yard and getting to know it."

These metaphors create vivid pictures of happiness and warmth. The
excitement and time spent with each other is important to an
individual's perception of the relationship, at least in its initial
stages. Continuation of the relationship is apparent through the
metaphors perceived. The language used in this stage appears to be a
significant factor in the success of relationship development.

Attraction metaphors were represented by the three internal
tensions--autonomy/connection, predictability/novelty, and
openness/closedness. Although not all at the same level of frequency,
several tensions emerge in initial interactions with individuals.
Interestingly, all positive images and comfort within the tensions
are depicted through individuals' feelings during this time period.
Is it possible that individuals easily manage these tensions at the
beginning of relationships, or that individuals do not see any
struggle between the poles of the tensions given their emotional
state to be with each other.

Development

The development category includes the process of the relationship.
Themes of growth, changes, progression, adjusting, development,
process, and explorations exemplify this category. Most metaphors
delineated the relationship as movement and had more description in
their explanations. Metaphoric images consist of "a growing plant"
from a seedling, getting nutrients from others, germinating to a
mature plant, and wanting to create new little plants; "a
photographer" taking pictures, developing them, and choosing the
picture to frame on the wall; "watching the instamatic polaroid" come
into being--watching the blank picture being processed; "a map" with
rivers, mountains, connected roads--finding where you have been,
people you've met, and where you will travel in the future; a walk on
the beach where you leave prints and impression where ever you go;
and "a wheelbarrow" with different amounts of dirt being pushed
through the backyard over smooth and rough terrain. These images were
described with several different metaphors showing a variety of
pictures as if individuals were creating a photo album as they were
describing their relationships. It is evident from these descriptions
that individuals see relationships as a process of development.

Within this process, individuals also identified particular events
or situations that created pivotal changes in the relationship. Such
metaphors include "opening the door," "spilling the beans," "visiting
your favorite park," and "waiting for the bus." These instances were
memorable times for individuals, but they were connected to some part
of the development process and many times included the interactions
of others.

The three internal dialectic tensions are represented throughout
this metaphor. Individuals are learning to communicate and interact
with each other, focusing a great deal of concern on building the
relationship itself. Partners want to spend time with each other,
watching the newness and surprises and understanding each other's
feelings. These tensions are evident as couples want to spend more
time with each other. A few metaphors were explained with the meeting
of each other's friends and families and expanding their social
networks, thus indicating the appearance of the inclusion/seclusion
tension. As scholars argue for the need to examine the process of
relationships (Baxter, 1990; Duck & Pittman, 1994; Werner &
Baxter, 1994), these illustrations of developmental metaphors and
dialectic tensions seem to be headed in the right direction.

Uncertainty

Images of uncertainty were evident in expressions of the unknown
or unpredictability. These illustrations were perceived as both
positive and negative within the relationship. Such metaphors
included "a roller coaster," "unleashing creativity," "an umbrella
with several emotions," "when he pulled the ring out--it was like a
flood," "mystery turns into suspicion," "cold feet," "deciding if you
want to dump out some dirt and slow down or just go for it and try to
run to get there quickly," "a sectioned orange--deciding to pull each
piece apart and look at each one or take the orange as a whole and
deal with it all at once," "leftovers--wondering what the hell to do
with them," "taking a bunch of pictures and choosing the one you
want," and "a pressure cooker."

A majority of the metaphors identified an element of
decision-making and contained internal tensions of
predictability/novelty and autonomy/connection. Individuals decided
whether to continue the relationship, and yet seemed to enjoy the
challenge of creating the relationship's future. These metaphors and
tensions also demonstrated the impulsive behaviors that take place in
relationships. Metaphors seem to depict both positive and negative
feelings associated with this unpredictability. External tensions of
inclusion/seclusion also appeared within this metaphor. Individuals
explained talking to others when deciding to continue the
relationship with their partners. Attempting to reduce uncertainty
about the relationship was not as much discussed with the relational
partner, rather with other externally who helped partners in their
decision-making processes.

Unsettled

The "unsettled" category includes metaphors describing conflict
(internal and external) and stagnation in the relationship. Feelings
of hopelessness or helplessness were frequently described. For
example, individuals depicted metaphors such as "for her--the spark,
the fire had died out," it's not twitterpated --it's just agitated,"
"it was like there was a barrier between us about everything,"
"hogging each other's sunlight and water and no one else is feeding
you," "now it's on hold--not much romance there," "it's like being
lost," and "you are really scarred by disaster." These metaphors
characterize individuals contemplating the state of the relationship.
Though the relationship may not dissolve, individuals are at least,
temporarily dissatisfied with the current status of the
relationship.

Contradictions of autonomy/connection and predictability/novelty
are represented by these metaphors. These metaphors appear opposite
to those Baxter (1992) labeled as "danger." In Baxter's study, danger
was used to describe the beginning of relational development and the
loss of autonomy, whereas in the current study, danger is considered
a possible loss of connection. Individuals approach the relationship
with caution as they fear the break-up of the relationship. They also
feel the relationship is not progressing, and thus losing the
spontaneity that was once created. Interestingly, this metaphor did
not indicate any external tensions, at least with this sample. One
would think that if partners were uncertain about the relationship
and tapped into external networks, that conflict or unsettling within
the relationship would also seek outside individuals. This finding
warrants further study in order to examine more carefully how
individuals seek social networks during dissatisfaction of
relationships.

Content

Content is the last metaphoric category of analysis where people
exhibit stability and security in the relationship. Individuals are
committed to the relationship and are established as a couple.
Metaphors representing contentment include "support," "settled down,"
"stable current," "solid," "knowing the old shoes will always be
there," "peace of mind," "allies," "dependent on itself," "circle -
you can close a book, or water can wash away footprints, but this
circle is never ending," "older wiser rabbit," "getting used to a
certain wattage," "knowing where the roads go and where they will end
up," and "walking hand in hand down the same path." The impression of
understanding each other and understanding the relationship is
depicted in these metaphors. Individuals are satisfied with the state
of the relationship and appear content with staying in the
relationship. Individuals have accepted their partners and sense
predictability in the relationship. This predictability does not
assume stagnation in the relationship, rather a comfort of knowing
what to expect.

Given the images of togetherness and contentment within the
relationship, these metaphors are embedded with autonomy/connection
and predictability/novelty tensions. Uniquely, it appears these
tensions are not seen as problematic. Both poles of the tensions are
operating at the same time, but do not appear to be in competition
with each other. This indicates individuals have adapted to the
tensions and no longer struggle with trying to satisfy one pole over
another, which aligns with the images of being content.

Conclusions and Future Directions

This study has expanded research of metaphors and the dialectic
perspective. As past research concentrated on specific dialectics,
this study explored any emergent tensions from respondents'
descriptions of their relational development. Individuals did
describe relationships in terms of felt contradictions. Internal
tensions were more prevalent; however, both internal and external
emerged from the data. Therefore trying to explicate couples'
behaviors and interactions with how internal and external
contradictions operate in relationships warrants further
research.

Analysis also revealed five categories of metaphors (attraction,
development, uncertainty, unsettled, and content) that reflect the
stages individuals identified for relational development. Many
scholars argue against the use of "stage" models of relationships;
however, this study did not presuppose stages, rather descriptions
and labels came from respondents. Interestingly, stages were a way
for partners to easily identify the changes in relational development
but did not use the term "stages" in their explanations. It appears
that partners themselves see relationships in terms of a
developmental process. Thus the term used did not seem to influence
how partners talked about their relationships.

Metaphoric descriptions revealed "uncertainty" as being a floating
stage that occurs several times throughout relational development.
These findings have implications for development models that argue
against a prescribed set of stages. As seen in several examples,
relationships appear to progress in similar fashion, and still show
the fluidity of stages but not a constant progression or dissolution.
Implications also can be seen for the Uncertainty Reduction Theory.
Results support previous notions that self-disclosure and relational
building do not necessarily eliminate uncertainty, but uncertainly
has a curvilinear relationship and may actually increase or recur as
partners get to know each other better.

Findings also represent several dialectic tensions operating
within relationships. The metaphors mainly represent internal
tensions, which may be due to the significance number of the internal
tensions characterized in initial analysis of the transcripts. A
limitation of this study is that individuals were asked to describe
their own romantic relationship and not specifically asked to
describe their interactions with others outside the relationship. The
exploratory nature of the study was to see if partners' descriptions
would inherently contain dialectics, without being presupposed or
asked by the researcher.

Discovering the connection between metaphors and dialectic
tensions is important. It aids in understanding the tensions
operating within relationships, as well as capturing cognitive
structures or schema from which people are operating. Dialectics then
can serve two purposes by examining the literal and figurative
language of relational partners. Examination of metaphors and
dialectic tensions can extend theoretical application of the
dialectic perspective and cognitive schemata theories, as well as
help interpret relational pairs' perceptions of relational
development.

The dialectic perspective is a positive alternative to other
approaches as it can look at the dyad of the relationship and not the
individual (Griffin, 1994). The study of both individuals within
relationships needs further attention. Second, dialectics and
metaphors also can be used for the study of many types of
relationships (friend, marital, cultural, and homosexual). Additional
research could focus on these relationships. Third, analysis of
partner differences could be examined. Do relational pairs identify
similar metaphors and tensions within the same relationship?

Overall, this study helped to fill some holes of dialectic and
metaphoric examination of relational development. It is hoped that
future scholars will stretch the rubber band of data and peel apart a
section their own orange to complete another chapter of interpersonal
research.